Rings wrote:It's been driven into our heads from Twilight (heck, the movie repeats this fact twice in rapid succession, if I recall)

Ah, well, there you have it. The movie. 'Nuff said (*grin*).

What can I say? I don't think it's driven into our heads by the novel of Twilight. In fact...if you think back, it barely impinges on Bella's consciousness (which is pretty threadlike at the time).

I suppose it's inevitable that the TW of the moviegoer will be different from that of someone who only read the books. Movies are a separate form of storytelling from books -- they have to be. If anything, the wonder is that the filmmakers have adhered so closely to the text that there could be any question of our discussing the Twilight of the films and the Twilight of the books as if they were the same story!

“When did you ever promise to kill yourself falling out of Charlie’s tree?”

Hehehe. Well that line from the movie stands out to me only because it's so blatantly obvious in delivery. Kind of a "Hey audience- pay attention!" moment.

But I'm pretty sure we hear about it in the novels, and that was what I was referring to in my earlier post. (I just quoted the movie because, as I said, obvious.) TW gives us a sort of passing reference, like a "oh, you do this, and we die" kind of thing. NM explores it more (and Bella is genuinely curious about it then). EC shows us more concrete examples of it. Finally we have BD and the example made of Irina.

Interesting. So we know about it before it even happens. Whereas in the book...the violence we witness is entirely the violence done to Bella. James' destruction takes place at the very margins of our consciousness (and hers). Which gives us -- the readers -- a very different perspective. I really don't think you can underestimate the importance of this.

“When did you ever promise to kill yourself falling out of Charlie’s tree?”

andypalmer wrote:I would guess burning napalm, if you could get it on a vampire, would kill one. I suspect that they could make it through "standard" fire relatively unharmed, as long as they were not "bleeding venom" but also suspect that more extreme heat would damage their outer "stone-like" skin and set their venom alight. So, humans armed with flamethrowers, incendiary grenades, and the like would be a threat, albeit only in numbers - vampire super-speed is a potent weapon.

Plus keep in mind that these are weapons that humans have designed without vampire-slaying in mind. If a war were to occur, within six months we'd have: - white phosphorous rounds for guns (high heat) - napalm filled bullets (think the UV or silver-nitrate bullets from Underworld) - gyrojet weapons (think guns with bullets an inch or more in diameter, designed to hit harder and with bullets that could hold napalm or some other substance)

A bunch of guys spraying automatic fire at a vampire are going to hit with some of those bullets; if any individual bullets can get the fire going, the vampire would be in trouble.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on just about this entire post. Aside from the fact that trying to explain Twi-pires with science is literally the stupidest idea Ms. Meyer could have ever had (and I mean that sentence with all due respect towards the author), have you ever hit a diamond? Shot one? Tried to burn it, perhaps? No? Please, give it a go. I'll wait.

Bullets are not going to work on vampires. Napalm carpet-bombing will not work on a vampire smart enough to close his mouth and eyes. Shrapnel is not going to affect a vampire. In fact, nothing short of a nuclear blast (as laser attacks would be scattered by their reflective skin) is going to faze a vampire what so ever. By all laws of science, they shouldn't even be able to kill each other, let alone get killed by mortals.

Well, I'll agree that those who live by explanations tend to die by them. What makes Twilight work for the reader are not its logical consistencies(!) but its thematic and emotional ones. Twilight makes sense the way dreams make sense: at the level of association and archetype, not science and practical reasoning. But that's a pretty powerful kind of sense too: enough to command assent from thousands of readers and pull them headlong into the story. Stephenie could (and probably should) have left her fantasy in the realm of myth: unanalyzed -- and indeed defying all rational explanation.

I tend to think that we as a fandom bear a heavy responsibility for her attempts to defend the indefensible, and more to the point, explain the inexplicable. If we had any sense, we'd have left it alone instead of challenging her to make the mechanics of her vampire world add up. We don't believe in Edward and Bella's love story because the materials science of vampire bodies is probable, but because the fantasies it taps into (of fatal attraction, love measured out in sacrifice, the gift (and curse) of immortality etc) are so compelling. Egging her on to focus on the practicalities rather than the fantasies is probably the stupidest thing which WE collectively, as a fandom, have done.

Fun though it undeniably is to geek out on these topics.... (*grin*).

“When did you ever promise to kill yourself falling out of Charlie’s tree?”

Knives wrote:I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on just about this entire post. Aside from the fact that trying to explain Twi-pires with science is literally the stupidest idea Ms. Meyer could have ever had (and I mean that sentence with all due respect towards the author), have you ever hit a diamond? Shot one? Tried to burn it, perhaps? No? Please, give it a go. I'll wait.Bullets are not going to work on vampires. Napalm carpet-bombing will not work on a vampire smart enough to close his mouth and eyes. Shrapnel is not going to affect a vampire. In fact, nothing short of a nuclear blast (as laser attacks would be scattered by their reflective skin) is going to faze a vampire what so ever. By all laws of science, they shouldn't even be able to kill each other, let alone get killed by mortals.

A few gaps in your logic. Where does SM state that her vampires are made of diamond? I'll give you some time to look. Go ahead. Hmm. No luck?Just because the outer shell of vampires is hard and has some diamond-like visual qualities does not mean that they share key chemical qualities, such as boiling point and general flammability nor even their tensile strength or toughness (which for diamonds, is only rated fair). The refractive argument was a huge stretch as well.

Well it's been mentioned that their skin is "impervious" except to other vampires (and shapeshifters- I'm assuming true Children of the Moon can also harm them based on Caius' story). And wasn't there a part where Edward was unperturbed about Charlie shooting him? (I think that was in some conversation he had with Bella but I can't recall when this was, now.)